tv Washington Journal CSPAN September 16, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
>> in 45 minutes, "the weekly standard" editor bill kristol, vermont senator bernie sanders and chris strohm. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] caller: host: primary season is nearly over. november 2. across the country, tea party- backed candidates have been nominated for the gop position that includes sharron angle in nevada, might lead in utah, joe miller in alaska, rand's paul in kentucky, marco rubio in florida and christine o'donnell in jell-
that is the analysis in a "the washington times." from "roll call." also in "roll call" is an analysis. he says a lot of the candidates can be elected but delaware is different. it christina obama's victory effectively ends the party's chances of winning the senate seat long held by joe biden. that is his analysis. on the front page of "washington
again, republicans only. we want to hear if you are happy with your tea party-backed candidates. mark -- mike from spartanburg, south carolina. you say no. go ahead. caller: good morning. those are the fringe folks and they are crazy. they can't win, thank god. but there is no plan for what they are going to do once they get there. they want to destroy education, get rid of social security. these folks are crazy. we can't afford to have those guys in office. host: are you a republican? caller: i am. host: what are you going to do in november? caller: a very good question.
i am not thinking about voting for those guys. i may have to sit this one out. i don't want to. i shouldn't. but it is crazy. of those guys are not. host: las vegas, nevada. you say, yes, you are happy with your tea party-backed candidates. caller: i am quite happy. the tea party movement is an american movement. it is not democratic or republican. we are talking about taking back our government for america. the democrats and republicans -- sens of the progressive movement started -- we had a couple of the big depressions, robbing though working class and then dropped in the country. this is for the whole country. the bipartisan government of the past 100 years has failed.
host: you have sharron angle nominated out there. how is she doing on the campaign trail? caller: the last poll i heard yesterday, she was slightly ahead. like, 43 or 44. host: are you seeing a lot of campaign commercials? caller: yes, i m. not a whole lot. they are really loading up the internet, though. campaign mode. every pop up looks like a sharron angle or harry reid commercial. host: do you work in the casino business at all? caller: no, i am not. i am a retired cop. host: thank you for calling in. georgia. carolyn abuse said you are also happy with your candidates. caller: because they represent, we, the people. both the democrats and republicans lost their way and we are just so excited that we
finally have found a way to have a voice in our government. and so i am very, very excited. a very helpful with the -- for the november elections. host: carolyn, what issues are you most concerned about? caller: i am concerned about out-of-control spending. and i just feel that we have lost our way when it comes to that. the democrats and republicans are not listening to the people, so we finally have a voice and we are going to use that voice. host: "the washington times" editorial section. ed morrissey writes. maryann. hattiesburg, mississippi. you said, no, you are not happy. are you still with us? caller: the reason i am not happy is because the republicans
are stonewalling everything the president is trying to put forth that is going to help the american people. host: are you are republican? caller: yes, i am a republican. i voted for a republican governor in mississippi which was haley barbour and he has did everything that he could to not to help poor people. to help poor people. he's got a track record of not doing what he is supposed to do. host: thank you for calling in. again, we want to hear from you, republicans only, these first 45 minutes. are you happy with your tea party-backed candidates? yes and no hard answers. numbers on the screen. front page of "the new york times" this morning. gop rebel marches on, the past and her way. in the story date detail a few of the issues about d-day detail
that is in "the new york times" this morning. washington, d.c., dave on the yes line. caller: i actually work for a certain grass roots organization that works with the tea party and i would like to say my boss is quoted as saying this is a hostile takeover of the gop. it essentially what it means is, you can no longer run as a republican and tax and spend. this movement started when bush was in office when he passed the bailout to the car companies and stimulus packages. it keeps on going. i work with these people every day and i tell you, they are fed up and the last caller said it
best, an american movement. 100% right. host: what is the organization? caller: freedom works. host: dick armey's organization. caller: yes, i work for freedom works. host: this is from "the daily mail" out of london. michelle obama things being america pause of first lady is, she reveals today in a widely indiscrete new book. ask, it's, i can't stand that." details of the private conversation which took place at the white house during an official visit by nicolas sarkozy last month emerged in a book written in collaboration with mrs. bruni.
in it, she says one term for french president will be enough for a husband and suggest he might take tips from his friend, tony blair -- why not start making money? according to a friend quoted in the book the sarkozys and friends have been impressed and inspired by mr. tony blair's fortune after leading downing street. eds is a thinly veiled swipe at princess diana -- visiting a hospital for the aids victims. she refused a cameraman for a photograph of her holding a baby in her arms -- sang it is something unseemly about promoting yourself when you are giving of yourself. this is from "the daily mail" this morning. this is andrew breitbart -- big government. shock audio, facing obligations from leadership, democrat
congressman leaves a voicemail for lobbyist cash. but the prospects in november deteriorating, congressional democrats are scrambling to assemble the financial resources they hope to stave off their election armageddon. speaker pelosi and the leadership team are putting a lot of pressure on democrat members to pony up campaign contributions to the democratic congressional campaign committee. an article link above, in august pelosi and other top leaders wrote members saying "we need to know your commitment is maintaining a strong democratic majority now" and pleading for them to call to let us know what you are able to do and wind. the pressure is especially strong on members from safe districts will need little campaign money of their own to win reelection. the catch, though, is many of these members have not amassed vast campaign war chests for the simple reason they have not need them. so they are scrambling to meet their pelosi-imposed
obligations. eleanor holmes norton is from such a safe district, district of columbia. in the following voice mail recording, she seeks a campaign contribution from a lobbyist and even mentions that she had not previously asked for a donation. andrew bretibart links in this andrew bretibart links in this article, big government.com. >> this is congresswoman eleanor holmes norton. i noticed that you have given to other colleagues on the transportation and infrastructure committee. i am a senior member, 20-year veteran and and share of the subcommittee on economic development, public buildings and emergency management. handling the largest economic development project in the united states -- a homeland security compound of three buildings being built on the old
st. elizabeth hospital site and the district of columbia, along with 15 other sites here that are part of the stimulus. i was frankly surprised to see that we don't have a record as far as i can tell of you haven't -- having given to me despite my long and deep work. in fact, it has been my major work on the committee and subcommittees. it is essentially in your sector. i can't remember recalling is in for a contribution. the senior member of the committee, subcommittee chaired -- we have obligations to raise funds. i think it must have been made who has not frankly done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. so i am going to make up for it by asking for one now.
host: and you can find the full article and audio for yourself at breitbart.com -- click on the big government tab. dems see ray of hope. they see it as a sign the republican chaos and an array of hope for the uphill fight to hold the house and senate this fall. politicians were grappling with the years -- that is the front page of "the hill." republicans only, are you happy
with your tea party-backed candidates? you say yes you are. why is that? caller: i am totally contend with carl paladino being a viable republican candidate for governor of this state. host: why? caller: the first time the gop has actually put out the candidates that could possibly challenge the democratic majority. host: all right. virginia. joe, you say, no. why? caller: i am not over all happy with what is going on. the reason why i say that is we -- even with the tea party candidates, the only thing we would do is slow down the change. there has not really been any change. understand,don't that i find quite pertinent,
with as much discontent as there is from voters -- voting with former democratic candidates as well as republican candidates, while a third party hasn't developed as in with what ross perot? i'm afraid the tea party candidate would do nothing more than to split the votes, we're in a general election the democrats would come back on top. host: on our 20 page -- twitter page -- that comes from helen. san diego. joanne. you say, yes, you are happy with the tea party-backed candidate. caller: i am thrilled. we have a great slate in california with carly fiorina
alabama and meg whitman -- host: what she tea party? caller: i have to confess i have not gone out to one of the events, but i am thrilled that people in our country are fighting back, fighting for the system. i like the candidates like in florida and ohio and kansas. these are such thrilling candidates that are fighting for our system -- very opposed to obamacare, very worried about the heavy hand of the federal government and i just could not be happier. and i hope for years -- we supported moderate republicans and were told that is the way to win, and now i hope moderates will reciprocate and support conservative americans, republicans, and independents.
that is in "the hill" newspaper. california. craig, you are happy. caller: i believe the breath of fresh air is the tea party. i have been a republican sens i was 18 years old. i am now 57, going on 58. and we just needed something that is going to be in the direction that is going to open the eyes of not only republicans but open the eyes of democrats, to bring back -- to bring back -- host: what issues are most concerning to you? caller: the fact is -- here is a position i have always seen. they always say democrats are the blue party and wealthy
people are republicans. that is totally ridiculous. pelosi alone in her party and the boxer -- and boxer, keep people in california, these two people are extremely wealthy from their democratic positions. something they have lost touch something they have lost touch with and the democrats have lost touch with. i am republican but i vote for the person who is going to represent me. so i am not strictly a republican voter. host: john, laurel, maryland. you say, no, you are not happy. caller: first of all, it is my opinion that my republican party is focused on getting back in power. celebrating out of the bush years when people were making money -- now that they lost power they are focused on just any back in part. i became republican when i was 18 as well because i felt that people needed a little help to get where they needed to be and
not government intervening, the government job is to do what the public cannot do for themselves. with the tea party candidates it seems like a lot and repeople will really do not realize the whole intricacy of a situation. everybody is yelling and angry. you can't make rational decisions out anger. that is not possible. so i see a lot of these tea party candidates having concerns, but just taking their concerns into an anchor-type format. to stop this and stop that. understand that those things that are happening are needing to be happening because of the situation we are in with this economy, that is a product of the bad choices that have been made over the past decade. i think you are doing a great job. host: los angeles. carl, you also are unhappy with your tea party-backed candidates. why is that? caller: the reason i am not happy is they keep on saying they need government to stay out of everybody's business but then
again they are telling everybody to don't touch our medicare -- don't touch our social security but stay out of everything else. the reason we are in this mess at the beginning is because government stayed out of wall street and wall street basically destroyed itself. and like the caller before me said, the tea party are just angry. the they are not on social issues. only on financial, fiscal issues. i need a candidate that is going to take care of social issues and fiscal issues and stop being so angry because every time you talk to a tea party candidate a sound angry, about the system and government. and it is like we need some sort of government to take care of the united states. if we did not have government there would be like anarchy and people will be running -- people need to understand that barack obama -- i did not vote for him
candidate, marco rubio, i say he will make them more accountable to the back door deals they have been doing. because every time they got and little -- they got plans to do things but they keep them back door. but once a the little things they bring them out to the light and tried to throw us off of the past, you know what i am saying? host: there is for calling in. buffalo. melissa. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to say, no, i am not happy with all of the tea party candidates. i think there are some good ones. i am especially not happy with carl paladino and not happy with sharron angle. they both want social programs that that figure not necessary at the time. what we need to focus on is more job creation. host: front page of "the guardian" out of london. the pope is going to london for the first time ever since
england broke from the church. but on the other side, u.s. politics. a picture -- big picture of christine obama with the headline. you can see it for yourself -- christine o'donnell with the headline. you can see it for yourself. you say you are not happy. caller: no, sir, i'm certainly not. this is one of the most disruptive and things to the republican party that i have observed in many, many years. as the previous callers have stated, this party is simply angry and none of them in my view have of the capabilities to take any of the seats that they are pursuing. this is a terrible act. the democrats are going to tear the republican party up when the election are arrives because of this disruption. i will use an example of one
party -- to many to try to review. o'donnell out of delaware. if this is the best person that that party can put forward, it is a disgrace. this lady obviously -- simply speaking, can not multitask. if you read you back a 10-year decade. gold, there is no positive act she has participated in her personal life, much less a business. the financial facts of this lady is so destructive, it is pathetic. and to think that she would sit in a senate seat and represent the country is appalling. host: because of her personal financial issues? caller yes, and her views.
her views are not appropriate. this tea party is simply acting on an anchor. i agree that we need changes but we need positive plans to implement those changes. host: michael, when it comes to for financial issues, is there a difference between her and, say, what we discovered about tom daschle or timothy geithner a wingback taxes or not paying taxes? caller: my view of this, not to go so deeply in it so other callers have opportunities this morning, all of these people, if they have not lived inappropriate positive like they did not deserve a seat representing our country. if they cannot run their personal life, how can they make decisions for our country? host: senate county, new york.
hamilton, you say you are happy with your tea party candidates. caller: the message is clear. equipped spending, reduce the tax load. and we are not as a country very happy with the policies that are being pushed down our throats. host: was does -- you are from the year. what does carl paladino bling? -- bring? caller: he says he will lower taxes 10% and reduced spending 20%. that is what we need. host: thank you for calling in this morning. front page of "the wall street journal" -- regulators to target window dressing.
grandchildren, and working, and unhappy with that health care bill that forces us to have to buy something that we don't want. i am on the social security. my daughter was working for burger king, and now michelle obama comes out -- she was only getting 18 hours. she was not getting enough money she was not getting enough money for gas to go on that -- go on back, 50 minutes' drive. she could not even pay her gas. you know, i am just on social security and retirement in and trying to make ends meet and i was doing very fine when bush was in. and i am still not doing good now. host: all right. sam tweets --
"the financial times" this morning. one of the world's richest men is to have his 2000 to criminal conviction for insider trading reviewed by the european court for human rights. he appealed after he was convicted by a french court of insider trading in 2002 in relation to his conduct during a takeover battle in 1998 involving one of the country's biggest banks. and that is in "the financial times" this morning. in a "the washington post," which often does this update, is
about current war deaths in afghanistan since 2001. i want to point out that former president jimmy carter has an op-ed piece in "the new york times" on north korea. north korea wants to make a deal. by the way, mr. carter is coming out with his white house diaries book very shortly. these are the diaries kept in the white house. he will be our guest on book tv in the next few weeks. the next call comes from milwaukee. bob. you say you are not happy. why? caller: i would like to see a full blown third-party out there. host: you've got to turn down the volume of your television. just hit the mute button.
caller: can you hear me now? ok. i am not happy with any of those -- i would rather see a full boat -- full-blown third party. somebody mentioned earlier, much like ross perot, where the issues -- there are a lot of things out there. a couple of callers called then, the one lady in delaware, she was not qualified. what about that democratic die in south carolina who has no clue. each one of these parties just don't seem to have it. host: republican party in wisconsin -- ron johnson? caller: never heard of the guy before. host: ok. caller: did you vote in the primary? host: did you vote in the republican primary? caller: unfortunately -- we are only allowed to vote either republican or democrat.
host: who did you vote for? caller: i put my name in. caller: i put my name in. host:, e-books did you get? caller: i did not get mentioned in the paper. host: what do you do for a living? caller: i am a retired woodworker. host: what do you mean by that? caller: cabinetry, home- improvement, countertops, cabinets. host: and completely retired? caller: i have about $1,500 worth of investment in my own woodworking tools over the last five years and i kind of puts our rounds on the side doing odd jobs for people. just to keep myself going. but my whole point is, for four years we are not happy with the one-party so we go with this party and then after 50 years of that party we are ready to go back to our other party. back to our other party. -- after four years of that party we are ready to go to another party. ross perot had a clue in, but
the media tore him apart and made him look like a buffoon. there is too much anger. and i hear it from all of the people on both sides of the aisle. so much anchor. somebody mentioned about charlie rangel and daschle -- the one guy was complaining. the guy was kind of stunt. he did not have any insight. people really have to educate themselves by themselves. do not listen to olbermann, don't listen to fox, so do your research on your own so you can make a credible position. host: bob, when you look at candidates in -- we did have a caller call in to say that you have to be simi perfect to be a candidate. you agree? caller: twitter all-purpose people. got it don't make mistakes. only people make mistakes. host: super tone tweets in --
equally famous for the stalwart defender of english and died in oxford, england. he was 91. he died of pneumonia in august but the announcement was delayed until wednesday so the family could spend time reading privately, his lawyer said. he said he and his wife moved to england in 2007 to live closer to their daughter. that is in "the new york times" this morning. we've got a few more minutes before bill kristol comes out and takes our cause and continue the conversation on the issue of the tea party candidates in the future of the gop. so, if you want to call in, you can go ahead and call in. this is "the new york times" business day section. craig's list says it shot its
section for sex ads. the company abruptly removed the links for the ads earlier this month and replaced them with a black label bearing the word censored. that hearing was covered by c- span. if you want to watch the whole hearing, go to c-span.org and you can find it in the video library. last caller, new hope, ky.
why are you happy? caller: my first and favorite cause, that is the right to life of every child that is conceived. so i am very pleased to see that -- i believe that the former governor of alaska, sarah palin, has had a very good a effect on the choice of these different candidates, especially the one that just got elected. host: thank you to everybody who called in. bill kristol is next.
>> for me or anyone else considering continuing and public service i think the real question is, do you have a vision, a positive debate -- vision for the direction of the country? the you have specific deals to implement the vision and a demonstrated said of experience to show you can get it done? >> outgoing minnesota gov. tim pawlenty, on a potential run and growing up in minnesota and eight years as governor. warren brown writes the weekly car column for "the washington post." >> it is justifiable to have an argument to say we would not have a black middle-class had we not had general motors, ford, and chrysler. >> in 2008 he supported the
government bailout of the auto industry. sunday night he will talk about his life and what is ahead for car makers on c-span's q&a. >> this weekend on after words, the conflict between the first amendment and national security. a take on "necessary secrets." interviewed by former attorney general michael kazin. this weekend on book tv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: bill kristol describe what was going on with the tea party candidates and establishment gop as a civil war. did you agree? guest: a lot of disputes. most of which being resolved. i think on the but -- november 2, 90% of tea party will vote for republicans and 90% of republicans will vote for the insurgent candidates to one the primaries that had teamwork -- tea party support.
if you expand a party, you get a lot more energy. you also get disputes. more contests. as a whole a very good thing for republican party and conservatives. host: is this a purge of so- called moderate republicans as some article said? guest: not what people will in the primary. a purge is when dictators get rid of factions of their party. mike castle was the congressman from delaware who wanted to move up to the senate, christine o'donnell made a good case. mike castle ran a poor campaign. i would still let preferred my castle, even though he is a lot i would still let preferred my more liberal than i am because i did not think christine of donald has a good chance he told the seat. i respect my castle. he is a liberal-moderate republican but i think a decent man and conscientious. the voters of delaware decided differently. this is a year in which i think
eight or nine republican senatorial committee endorsed candidate, establishment endorsed candidates have lost. in most of the cases, -- though, most of the people who beat them had better qualifications and will win. host: if you had written a check in delaware, you would everyone to mike castle and not christine obama? would you have written a check to sharron angle? guest: there were three or four candidates. i was not persuaded that one was much more modestly better than the other. i do not go all around to all 37 races -- the people in the states have to know much more than people like me. than people like me. but there is this caricature of the tea party that these are a bunch of -- outraged, taking on the establishment, which is ludicrous. joe miller in alaska who defeated lisa murkowski -- lisa murkowski was a competent
senator, she was a port -- appointed by her father and reelected with a poor showing in 2004. she was challenged by joe miller, west point graduate, bronze star in desert storm, he is not allowed to challenge her? that is the attitude of a lot of the republican establishment. in that respect i am totally for the tea party people. a free country. primary challenges are healthy and they produce a better crop as a whole. mike lee in utah, march rubio in florida. in house races, very impressive young candidates. that is what happens when a party is growing. energy, excitement, activism. some fighting. like a football team with four or five good running backs -- only two gunplay at once. there is a lot of tension in the
locker room. the coach gets second-best. abettors have that as a tuition than two mediocre -- that is a better situation than having two mediocre. 2006, as i recall, there were not many republican primaries. every incumbent was re- nominated. if republicans -- did they do well? i don't think so. this year with all the turmoil, some dissension, republicans will do just fine. host: the normal phone lines are open. plus a fourth line for tea party supporters. supporters. in 1992 you were chief of staff to vice president quayle whose son was nominated in the third district.
but the ross perot movement in 1992 helped to derail george h. w. bush's presidency. the ec a similarity between ross perot in 1992 and a tea party in 2010? guest: i see a similarity and contrast. the bad thing in 1992 was -- he ran as a third-party candidate and got 19 million votes and helped defeat the first president bush. tea party activists, the huge majority are running within the republican party. they are energizing the republican party. they will vote for republicans in november. they will help republicans when the house and pick up an awful lot of senate seats. 6, 9, 12 months ago, the washington media, liberal media were abuzz with the expectation and hope that the tea party would destroy the republican party. there would be third-party candidates all over the place like ross perot is that happening anywhere?
almost no wear. it is striking how the tea party activists, by partly defeating the republican establishment, by partly feeling like they had a fair fight. more establishment candidates won in other places. my sense is there were primaries, people had a chance to run against them and now there is pretty good unity. there is pretty good unity. ayotte, i did not think there will be third-party candidates running against two. activists -- if you prefer one candidate, it is very annoying -- not just annoying but depressing and disheartening when your favorite loses. it is healthier for the party. you could have a republican party that never had primaries and the next person in line just steps up and that party would get 42% of the vote and holding 40% of senators and congressmen. host: what is your reaction to
john boehner as speaker? guest: as minority leader -- i think he has done a good job. i myself -- i certainly agree with john boehner and the policies he would push for as opposed to pelosi. i think he has done a good job as minority leader. not a bomb thrower. he is older, but his team is a nice mix of those that are experienced and young people who are more energetic, more energetic -- aggressive, strong but impressive intellectual figures like paul ryan from wisconsin. the team is a strong team for republicans. host: do you see anyone else -- perhaps, let's say the republicans to take the house. do you see anybody challenging him for the leadership? guest: no, i think the team will basically stay in place. i think paul ryan is the one to
watch. they will try to repeal obamaca re and extend the bush tax cut, and then there will be a republican budget that comes around early april. and paul ryan will be chairman of the budget committee if republicans take the house and that will be really the first real statement of the republican governing vision. governing vision. candidates make speeches -- i want to cut this, reform this. john boehner will do speeches and things in the first couple and things in the first couple of months as house leader -- but most will not come along the cost of president obama and the senate. an opportunity and a risk in which the republicans laid out an alternative to president obama. orders will get to see, this is orders will get to see, this is the obama budget of around february 1 and this is the house republican budget released around april 1 and these are the
two different visions. host: bill kristol, the remember the day or you wake up and say now i am gop establishment and i used to be an insurgent? guest: my head spinning. the idea that every single person that puts himself or herself forward as a tea party candidate -- i am tea party, i have the support them or conversely, anyone an office for 20 or 30 years, you have to say i have been washington myself for 30 years, i have to vote for them. voters are perfectly capable of going both ways. voters have re-nominated plenty of incumbents and plenty of long serving congressmen and state legislators. they have also chosen outsiders, businessmen, novices, a younger candidates. most sensible people understand you can be generally appreciative -- very supportive
of the tea party, identify them in many ways, think they are a healthy phenomenon for conservatives and for america, honestly. it is an amazing thing what they have done this kind of grass roots bottom-up, peaceful, constructive, working within the political process to try to bring about changes. correctly unhappy with the direction the obama administration is trying to take the country and unhappy with some of the things the bush administration bid. does it mean every single candidate who shows up and says, hey, i am a tea party candidate, is a better candidate? no. host: let us take some calls. bill kristol is founder and editor of "the weekly standard" magazine and website. this is the covered this week. there you can see it. lancaster, pennsylvania. john on the independent line. caller: keep recycling bill
kristol over the years. he has been wrong about everything. he is a propagandist for fox news, a non circulating magazine. mentioned the tea party is a grass roots bottom of the outset funded by coke industries, the second-largest company of the world. he is mainly responsible for inflicting sarah palin on us, concerning her and mccain's -- host: what would you like mr. kristol to respond to your accusations about him being wrong about most things are just as general demeanor? caller: it would take too long for him to respond to all those things. why did you subject of listeners and viewers to the same old people? it so it is a c-span question. ok.
are you relevant? guest: i added a magazine and more than 100,000 people paid to subscribe to it. that is the one thing the caller said -- the non-circulating magazine. it is circulating pretty well. and the website against over 1 million unique visitors a month and traffic is up and circulating is up under president obama. give him a little credit. they are interested in ideas and arguments -- there are longer essays and book reviews and the like. i am proud of "the weekly standard." he is certainly free to turn off the c-span. i do not want you to lose viewers but if you want to turn it off the next half hour while i am on, i am sure you will have a better guess. host: as the viewer also knows, we have a variety of guests with points of view on this program all the time.
brooklyn, new york. democrat. hi. you're on the air, please. caller: i think definitely democrat voters are going to surprise of the republicans in the midterm elections. i think there is no way possible the republicans can take over the majority of the house and senate. republicans, they only speak for at the most of the people who watch of the cable tv. i think the majority people out there who are going to work, they are the ones who are going to step up and support the democrats because the republicans are the party of know all the time and they will get eight big hits in november. they think they will reclaim the senate and house, but they are in for the surprise. host: where are you from originally and what you do in brooklyn? caller: i am an electrician.
and i think -- i think republicans are going to be in for a fight. i guarantee you that. guest: there are surprises. one of the great things about politics is out i could not agree more, republicans should not set back, should not play defense, go into a prevent defense. kill the clock the way teams to in the nba. republican have to stay on the offensive, make their stake in congress. voters are intelligent. generally speaking, voters can say, i prefer the republican this year, but this republican is not up for it, and of
course, republicans and democrats will win. the data show far -- so far, in terms of actual primary turnout, about 4 million more voters voted in republican primaries than democratic primaries. there were some states where the republican primary was more competitive, but that is pretty striking. you remember 10 years ago, the democrats won by 10 points. that tells me there is more enthusiasm on the democratic side. lots of independent voters have gone to the republicans. i think the caller will be disappointed on november 3.
there is also a democratic primary, here in washington, d.c. -- two days ago. about as many people voted in that primary, as in delaware. there, the incumbent mayor was defeated. i think adrian fenty was trying to lead the city in the right direction. michelle rhee as the school's chancellor. i am afraid this is a bit of a referendum on them. this probably has set back reform efforts. in both parties, on the same day there was an upset in delaware, there was one here in washington, d.c.
one could point to this as a propagandist material. president obama did not get involved in this. why should he get involved in the d.c. primary? well, he is close to education. all i am saying is the media is obsessed with this result in delaware, but in washington, d.c. there was a result that was not good for those who want the democratic party to be a more progressive, reformist party. host: dixon, tennessee. tommy, republican. -- hixon, tennessee.
caller: the independent voters, tea party, and some democrats are coming together. the spending in washington -- it is growing so fast. we are literally losing everything and everyone is coming together to try to get these people out of office. one more thing, bill, i wrote you a letter about one month ago, and i gave you a suggestion on something that you could start. i wish you would give me the courtesy of calling me back or sending me a letter or something that you received my letter. i do not have a computer. please look it up. i have called your office
several times. host: what was your letter about? caller: it was just something that bill, "the weekly standard ," the wall street journal," could begin to discuss. thank you. guest: i apologize for that. perhaps it is on my desk. i do think you make a good point about the people turning out to vote. by definition, it cannot just be republicans answering these questions in the polls. in many of these primaries, it incidentally, are open primaries where anyone can register as a republican of to the date of the primary.
some of them have voted for democrats in 2008, but clearly, now they want to send a message. it cannot be the case that it is only republicans that are going to be doing this deed, noting the democrats out in november, because by definition they cannot do it themselves. host: is this short-term, fickle voters? guest: i were persuaded that the voters were being irrational, demanding, they do not understand we have to go through tough times, that would be one thing, but i do not think that
is fair to the voters. they can understand the growth of passage. republicans are not running on a message of, and elect us, everything will be great within 12 months, unemployment will be low, we will be ending the war in afghanistan. that happens sometimes in politics in america. people like to sit around washington, the voters have a short-term orientation. if he listened to the tea party candidates, like marker rubio, he does not make any promises for -- margo rubio --marco rubio , he does not make any promises.
he says that it will be tough. i think the conservative message is pretty tough, so to speak. host: why were voters willing, in 1984, to reelect ronald reagan during horrible economic times, not willing to reelect george h.w. bush, and now seem to be turning their back on president obama? guest: the economy is important, but i agree with the implication of your question. is too patronizing to say about the voters that it is just about the economy. now we know that there was more. the empirical numbers in 2006, the economy was growing,
unemployment was very low. 2006 was a pretty good year, but the republicans lost a lot of seats in the house. voters did not like the way the country was being governed. i think they make a judgment about whether the party in power has a credible plan to get us out of the probably have fallen into. whether they approve the direction the party in power is leading us. i think this is more of a question on president obama and nancy pelosi and harry reid's vision. they passed health care. the voters learned a lot about them. this is not the case where voters do not know anything. they were brought about information about the stimulus, health care plan.
the majority have come to the view that these programs are not good for the country. host: next phone call from east lake, ohio. jackie on the independent line. caller: neocons like mr. kristol manipulated this country into war in iraq. now he is trying to manipulate through his magazine and fox news, collaborating with rupert murdoch and dick armey. what he is trying to do, what they are not telling you, they want to destroy social security, medicare, any of the program could for the working class. host: could you identify what you mean by corporate autocracy -- corporatocracy?
caller: calling a professional entity a personage. it is an effort to manipulate the money. it all comes back to money. if mr. crystal was honest, he would understand corporations in the country are sitting on trillions of dollars, not because they could not hire people, not because it would not be good for them to get the economy going, but they can continually make more profit by making the people who work for them work harder, longer, cheaper, management by intimidation. everybody is afraid of losing their job. host: thank you. bill kristol. guest: most of the corporation
that i have dealt with seem perfectly hired to -- happy to hire people. i think the problem today is people are not convinced, given the objective economic situation in the country, first of all, and second, with the tax burden and regulatory costs going up, health care costs going up, it is hard to justify hiring people. people. i do not think anyone is sitting around trying to persecute their own employees. host: what about her statement that you are trying to get rid of social security and medicaid? guest: i am not trying to get rid of them. i think they have been pretty
effective. can they be reformed? absolutely. i was actually one of those who was critical of president bush's efforts in 2005 to reform social security. i thought it was not that urgent a problem, honestly. it is a popular program. i did not see why the president needed to focus on social security when there were so many other things to focus on. in is probably not necessary that ross perot received social security checks. it is not the worst thing in the world, but it is not the most efficient way to run the program. eventually, reform might be a
good idea medicaid does need to be reformed. there are all sorts of crazy ideas. doctors are taking fewer patients, and we should not kid ourselves, we need to reform medicare. republicans also have to explain how they are going to reform medicare. host: somebody that you probably know, mitch daniels, wrote an op-ed in the wall street journal -- "the wall street journal." did you read it, but did you think about his ideas? guest: i did read it, a very entertaining piece.
i think he might run. i know that we served together long ago in the earlier administrations. he is an impressive guy. what is impressive is he has curbed spending, has reforms of the pension programs, and has done so while the remaining popular. the idea that you cannot be a strong republican conservative, convince the government that this is necessary, even if there are real cuts, as there are right now -- the notion that you cannot do that is less credible than it was three years ago. very successful republican governors. that is something that your viewers should watch. mitch daniels it in indiana,
chris christie, haley barbour, bobby jindal in louisiana. if these people are affected in two ways -- if they can successfully implement republican reform policies, and maintain support, thate will be great for the republican party. republicans tend to get bifurcated be clean -- between policy reforms and those who are saying that it is too risky. mr. daniels is proven that that is wrong. he is also taking on corporate interest. the fact is, i think the
republican party needs to take on corporate welfare, at the national and state level. some of these governors are being aggressive, actually, helping citizens and government evenly, but not to allow special interest favors. one of the most offensive things about the obama administration is the way that they have institutionalized the crony capitalism in washington. it did not start with obama, but it remained. that is not healthy. i would prefer to have a level, business friendly playing field, but we do not want the government picking winners and losers. then you have these requests for campaign contributions. i did not hear that phone call
from eleanor holmes norton. i am surprised that you have not given a counterpane -- campaign contribution to me. that is wrong, that is offensive. republicans really need to be against that, including when they have done it in the past. that is why there will be fights in the party. some want to continue the practice of he marking -- earmarking. i know they are developing a pledge now whether or not to have earmarks if the republicans take the house. i think one of the healthy things about the tea party also is that they are against that kind of crony capitalism. it is important that the
it is important that the republicans in 2011, 2012 is not just against democratic crony capitalists, but that they are for true, level playing the field growth. host: should michael still be reelected as chairman of the gop -- steele be reelected as chairman of the gop? chairman of the gop? guest: i do not know many members of the rnc these days, but my sense is they will keep him on until the election. i would be surprised if he was reelected. host: jack in helena, montana. go ahead. caller: mr kristol, don't you
think it is offensive that meg whitman has so far spent $120 -- $120 million in her race in california? don't you think it is offensive if you add up all the money taken in from subscribers and advertisers from "the weekly standard, that it does not make a profit? it is completely under written by republican fat cats. guest: maybe another 20,000 of your friends could subscribe, so we could improve the profit. we have been making a profit for the past few years. but it is a free country. fat cats can underwrite journalisms of opinion. they currently do so for think tanks, other good causes as well. it is a free country, people can
spend their money as they wish. you can call it offensive that meg whitman is spending so much money running television commercials. an awful lot of taxpayer money has been spent over the years putting up signs with the names jerry brown on it, promoting the achievements, even when they are not that great. he has been governor, mayor, attorney general of oakland -- i like him personally. i do not agree with much with him. but also, i am against current campaign finance laws. the fact that meg whitman can spend all this money on herself, what if there was somebody that
she thought would be the perfect governor? she cannot contribute her money to that campaign because of the rules. i think that is crazy. we should have a much more liberal, open campaign finance system. host: columbus, indiana. daniel, a tea party supporter. caller: i like the elections, not just because of the candidates -- winning some of the elections. if you think about it, the tea party is not there for the democrats or republicans to win, it is for america to win, and next to selection. -- in the next election.
guest: yes, i was invited to speak at one of their rallies. i did not speak to everybody. there were people who have different views on domestic issues, but what struck me about 98% of the people that were there, they were decent, patriotic americans. no one was there try to get a tax break for his business, get a job for a relative. they took a couple of hours of to exchange ideas, show support for a movement that they feel will strengthen the country, for their kids and grandkids. that is a great american tradition that has been active on the left and right. on the left and right. the way that the conservative
elite treats the two party, i think, is wrong. -- the tea party, i think, is wrong. i am upset, benefits are being cut. they have a right to be upset. these are people who are acting out of spirited political motives. a couple of years ago, i interviewed a woman, she was middle class. the reporter tried to argue, obama is not going to give you any tax breaks. what are you excited about? she said, i am not here for myself. this is for my kids, the debt, spending, the tentacles of government reducing freedoms in this country. it was hard for the reporter to understand that people could be involved in politics out of
public spiritedness, not because they were seeking something for themselves. i was impressed in philadelphia that day. host: bill kristol, what is this ad on the inside cover of the weekly standard? not something you would expect to see in "the weekly standard." guest: if you are a union and you want to send a message to our readers, as well to washington, other political, media types -- a lot of them to read "the weekly standard -- do read "the weekly standard."
we take ads from everyone. host: springfield, illinois. june, you are on with bill kristol. caller: i was on so long, i was dozing. i appreciate you taking my call. i think this is one major deficit in the country, and our children do not understand american history, american government. schools should go in depth and start teaching our children, starting in first grade, about american government, american history. maybe we could involve the c- span directory in schools.
as a senior citizen, since i retired, i have been using the c-span directory, and it has informed me greatly about the politicians. in fact, i could be doing the t-- joining the tea baggers. i think term limits is one of the problems. people get in there and served forever. host: you are referring to the capital of god that we put out each congress? -- guide that we put out each congress? yes, that is right. i was involved briefly in illinois politics. of course, obama is from
illinois. i think he is intelligent, a charismatic, and he sort of floated into his position with that charisma, as well as his knowledge. i think we have to remember these cabinets of the president, the chicago mayor office -- host: we are going to have to leave it there. thank you for calling in. guest: illinois is a state that requires all lot of work. -- a lot of work. corruption has been a huge problem for both parties there. illinois is in as bad shape as new york, california, in terms of being on the brink of virtual
bankruptcy. i think mark hurd can win. i also very much agree about american history. c-span does do a great amount of work for that. i think there has been some progress over the last 25 years in public, private schools on teaching kids about history. i have been at odds with the tea party in the past few days, but it is interesting how interested they are in american history.
their very name, the tea party. are they trying to go back to a time of citizen participation, shaping of the government? the extent to which some of these american history books, biographies, best sellers -- the public is proud of america. they have a sense that we have drifted away from educating ourselves about that. people want to learn more about our history. history is not just history, it is a guide for the future. founding fathers tried to live a certain way, they tried to govern a certain way. trying to recapture that is part of this movement that the tea party is part of. host: what about her comment on term limits?
if they served two terms, she marks them and called them. guest: i was a supporter of term limits. states that have passed term limits, it is not clear that they have been better off because of them. i think it is probably a better idea for voters to enforce a term-limits rather than an arbitrary deadline. what we had in delaware was a kind of term limit. 44 years, the incumbent was term limited out and voted in
christine o'donnell. i would have preferred to keep matt castle, but i can understand the sentiment. joe biden was the senator from 1972. this was his seat and opened up, when he became vice president. and now you have this guy that has been around for 45 years? some of the vote was pro- christine o'donnell, but honestly, most of it was probably for change. host: bill kristol is the editor of this publication, "the weekly standard." thank you for coming on "the
washington journal." up next, senator bernie standard -- hot and standards of > butvermont. >> the president is going up to connecticut this afternoon. he will be campaigning and fund raising for richard blumenthal, the democratic candidate in the race. what is his schedule? >> the president is scheduled to arrive at around 5:00 this afternoon where he will do a fundraiser in stamford, connecticut at the marriot hotel for richard blumenthal. about 350 supporters are expected to attend, according to organizers, each of them paying $1,000. there is the standard photocopies with the president. that will set you back $12,000.
from there, the president will be going to greenwich, connecticut, where he will be doing an intimate dinner with 30 of the most loyal supporters in the area, each of whom is paying $30,000 up to date to have dinner with the president, in a gated community on a 20- acre estate. the home is probably worth about $16 million. the money from that will be going to the democratic national committee. >> any idea how much the president is expected to raise? >> those figures are still coming together. >> polls show this week linda mcmann -- many may remember her heading the wwf -- is a trailing
blumenthal in this race. >> this has been a roller- coaster race. many people thought that christopher dodd would be seeking reelection. there was some trepidation on the part of democrats there. dodd decided that he would retire at the end of the year. blumenthal, a 20-year attorney- general, job approval ratings up above 70%. you have seen this evolution, though, in may, this story came out that said he exaggerated his military record. he said he served in vietnam multiple occasions when he was a reservist here at home. that was a severe blow to blumenthal. also bringing this race closer,
undoubtably, mcmahon has spent $3 million in the primary. she beat eight previous career politician. she has built up momentum right through the primary. blumenthal did not have the primary. this is a very expensive television market, fairfield market, and she has saturated the airwaves. >> let's show the latest from each candidate. >> my father started this company in 1923. >> general motors made an announcement. >> we were able to save our jobs and keep our business going. >> we are back, thanks to you.
>> he is a fighter. he is not afraid to stand up to business. >> i am dick blumenthal, i approve this message. >> people ask me why i am running for senate. this lunch box represents a lot of people who have lost jobs. washington has created the perfect job killing storm with high taxes, deficit spending, and expensive mandates. we experienced careers in washington. i'm linda mcmahon. i approve this message because we need this lunch box and a lot more like it back at work. >> you noted linda mcmahon spent $20 million in the primary. how much so far in the general election, and how about her opponent? >> linda mcmahon says she is willing to spend up to $50 million on this race, a
staggering figure that would put her only second to jon corzine, who spent $60 million in 2000 in new jersey. blumenthal so far has spent $1.7 million on television ads. he is certainly no slouch, comes from a wealthy background himself. his father-in-law is the owner of the empire state building. mcmahon is largely self funding her campaign and it is hard for him to compete in the money category. >> will these two square off in a debate? >> yes, october 4. a fox affiliate in hartford, both of which are tribune properties, are holding a debate with the two. there are already some
complaints that mcmahon supporters have bought up many of the tickets for that. baier will bet moderating the debate, so you have democrats crying that it is not a level playing field. >> thank you for your time. for more information about campaign 2010, go to our website, c-span.org. host: joining us now is senator bernie sanders, an independent from vermont, who regularly caucuses with the democrats. are you fearful that harry reid will no longer be the democratic leader after november? >> there is a possibility of that happening -- guest: there is a possibility of that happening but i think the democrats will remain in the majority. i fear there are millions of americans, working people, who are so frustrated by the
economic situation, under employee, lost their homes, and they will take their anger out on the party in power. i hope, in the midst of these economic difficult times, people think about how we got here in the first place. in my view, the republican, bush policies were a disaster. let's not forget, the country was losing 700,000 jobs a month, the financial system was on the verge of collapse. in my view, have the democrats done enough to take on wall street? no, they have not. but it is important to remember how we got to where we are rather than punishing democrats for not moving more aggressively. bottom line, we cannot go back to the republican policies which caused the crisis. host: we have spent a lot of
time this morning talking about the tea party movement. what are some of the bright spots you have seen, as far as conservatives go? guest: as far as progressives, guest: as far as progressives, there is a satisfaction, but i would not be honest with you if i did not say, while many progressives are positive to president obama, there is a disappointment that he has not been as aggressive as he should have been, taking on big money interest. at the end of the day, what we have to understand is the middle class in this country is disappearing. property is increasing. the people on top are doing phenomenally well. that is the dynamic.
we have the most unequal distribution of wealth -- and that is an issue that the democrats have to talk about. we know republicans will not address it. democrats have to protect the working people and take on wall street. host: an issue that you have host: an issue that you have expressed views on in the past, consumer advocate to lead new watchdog agency. there are reports that elizabeth warren will be reported during -- as a recess appointment. guest: the reason people are so angry, they thought the greed, recklessness, illegal behavior on wall street -- and i use this word advisedly -- crooks,
who were only interested in getting as much money as they possibly could. they sought a bailout, and they have not yet seen congress stand up to wall street, who by the way, has spent billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions. you can not continue to rip off the middle class and working families. you cannot charge family's 30% interest. we have to start breaking up these big banks. one of the strongest advocates for the banks, who have been most clear of the delineating what wall street has done, is professor elizabeth warren. i want to applaud the president for that. i have been pushing for her to get this position. if true, it will be the best
applicant that he has made felipe calderon host: -- will be appointment that he has made. they have a filibuster, filibustered. let's bring elizabeth warren's named to the senate so she can be defeated. that does not make sense to me. i am not sure how the president plans to appoint her, but i am happy he is doing it. host: tax cuts, lots of debate. in your view, how should they be handled, will it be in a lame- duck session? guest: i think there will be a caucus this afternoon that will make that decision. i think we should do it now.
the u.s. has the most unequal distribution of income and wealth in the world. it is something that we do not talk about. we are in a situation where -- in the 1970's, the top 1% earned 8% of the wealth in the country. that number is three times that now. the top 1% earns 25% of the wealth in the country. interestingly enough, the top 1/10 of the top 1% holds 11% of the country's wealth. so people on top are becoming phenomenally well here, middle- class poverty increasing. my republican friends think it is a good idea, after they scream about the deficit, apparently, think it is a good
idea to provide $700 billion to the top 2%. i think that is a dumb idea. this is what i think we should do. take that $700 billion, and instead of giving it to tax breaks -- and by the way, millionaires would average $100,000 in tax breaks. instead, use half of it for deficit reduction, the other half for energy investment, infrastructure. we need to have jobs building our schools, roads, school systems, transforming the energy system. that makes a lot of sense to me instead of helping these corporations. host: you are a member of the budget committee. this is an article from yesterday's "wall street
journal." it also says 45% of u.s. households to not pay an income tax. guest: that is right. with all due respect, sometimes they do not get it right. that does not include fica taxes. everyone pays a payroll tax. the federal income tax has gone down. but here is the point to be made. when the top 1% earns more than the bottom 50%, we should not be surprised that it is the top 1% that pays more in taxes. but the reality is, we have lowered the effective tax rate for the top 1%.
i think you have heard, warren buffett for example -- one of the richest people in the world -- has made the point that he makes an effective tax rate that is less than the policemen or firemen in his city. to give tax breaks to the richest people in the country who already received significant breaks, at a time that we have a trillion dollar debt, makes no sense to me. it just speaks to the incredible greed of people on top with seem to want more and more for themselves and could care less about the rest of the country. host: you refer to your republican friends -- who is your favorite republican in the senate? senate? guest: there are a number on a number of committees. for example, i find lamar
alexander to be quite pleasant. host: dan on the republican line, you are first. caller: i have a question regarding s.604. at some point, he decided to water down that bill. i wonder if you believe it was your call to water it down before telling anybody about it -- you know, without devising another plan. guest: here is the story on that. i reached the judgment -- which i believe is the right one. so that people understand, i introduced legislation in the senate, and for the first time in the history of the senate, we would applaud it -- audit the fed. they are an enormously powerful
organization who prints money, attacks the soundness of our financial system. financial system. -- insures the soundness of our financial system. there was some language in their that passed to audit the fed. i think history prove me right, but we did not have the votes to pass the language. but what we did do it is get an audit of the fed on what people were most concerned about, the emergency provisions that were occurring over the past three years. the fed -- they lent out at year's zero interest loans over
$2 million. for the first time, we are going to find out who those financial institutions were who received that money. we're also going to look at the conflicts of interest, that in my view, took place, between the fed, goldman sachs, a.i.g., and other large institutions. the passage and inclusion in financial reform was a major step forward. we did not get everything we wanted, but a major step forward. host: this tweet for you -- host: this tweet for you -- guest: i agree. i voted for healthcare reform for a number of reasons. while it was, by no means, the bill that i thought the country needed, it was what we could
get with virtually no republican support. i also worked hard to double the number of people who would have access to health insurance. we provided insurance for 30 million more people. i think what the tweeter is saying is right. at the end of the day, we should have a system -- we have a system where private companies place such a prominent role. i do not want to shock people, but a private insurance companies highest priority is making money. i believe in a medicare, coverage for all-type of system. it would give states the flexibility of moving toward a single payer system, or other forms of health care that they would choose.
host: robert. dinwiddie, virginia. caller: i have a couple of questions. i am just amazed at the amount of money that is being spent by the republicans -- of course, the rich are behind it. the tv is full of ads and you have people out here who are well below the poverty line, and republican believe that they can save us all. save us all. the democrats do not do more to show us that we cannot go back to the old days -- $4 a gallon for gasoline. people had to do everything they could just to get back and forth
from work. the republicans are spending so much money. i think we need a law that could regulate how much money can be pushed into that. guest: robert makes a profound statement, you're absolutely right. what we are seeing now, and especially because of the citizens united supreme court decision, is people are upset because of the money that is being spent. large corporations and wealthy individuals are not content with the money that they have so they are using it to deeply influenced the political process. we are talking about huge amounts of money. correct me if i am wrong, but i think we will see double the amount of money going into campaigns this campaign, than in the last. many of those commercials will
be funded by large corporations, some by foreign- owned corporations. clearly, robert is right. big money is playing a huge part. that is bad for not only the democrats, but that for democracy. it should not be based on who has the most money. host: another tweet from twiggy -- guest: i do not know about that, but there is no question, wall street has influenced both political parties. i am an independent. having said that, the evidence is pretty clear, we have almost no republicans, in terms of
financial reform. the democratic bill, in my view, did not go as far as it should have, but they attempted to do something. if the caller is suggesting that wall street -- which by the way, in that time of deregulation, spent billions of dollars to lobby campaign contribution -- and you are right. host: senator sanders is a graduate of the university of chicago. how did you get there? guest: i went to brooklyn college for one year. i wanted to get away from home. i was able to get some financial assistance, and enjoyed it very much. host: you are not the typical university of chicago student. massachusetts. barbara, on the democratic line. caller: i am calling to suggest
a fix to the session -- social security system for the upper income individuals who do not need the money. any social security recipient could choose to set up a legacy account where they could transfer their social security quarters to one of their children, relative, maybe even to a charitable organization. maybe as a sweetener, they could take that volume dollars each year as a charitable contribution. at least evidence that it would be happening. we all get these statements that show what our payout will be. you could see those numbers on your statement. guest: an interesting idea. let me be as clear as i can. you are hearing every day from the right wing that social security is going bankrupt, we
need to take steps, maybe privatize it, maybe raise the retirement age. let me say unequivocally, social security is not going that -- bankrupt. according to the congressional budget office, social security can pay out every benefit code to every eligible american or the next 29 years without going bankrupt. at that point, it will pay 80% of the benefits owed to eligible americans. what is the solution? what is the solution? it is a solution that president obama mentioned in his campaign. right now, if you are a multimillionaire and you make $100,000 a year, you pay the same amount into the fund. if you lift that cap up to $200,000, the problem could be solved. i believe there is opposition
to social security is because this plan has worked. it has cut back on expenses for the poor, take care of widows. despite terrible economic times, social security has paid out $1 on the dollar of what people were entitled to receive. it is working, let us not dismembered it. host: the number of newly laid- off workers seeking unemployment benefits dropped slightly last week, a sign employers are cutting fewer jobs. the labor department says unemployment benefits declined while many expected an increase. louisiana. james, go ahead.
caller: first of all, i am retired air force. i am very displeased with the republicans right now because they are not working with the democrats. they are all supposed to be supporting the people but they are deliberately tried to take care of their companies because that is where they get their campaign contributions. it is hurting the country and is only making that 1% rich. it is good if you guest: i agree with james. here is the point -- i want everyone to appreciate that when you turn on the news networks, you do not hear this discussion. why is it we do not hear discussion about the growing gap between the very, very rich -- the top one-tenth of 1% and
earns 11% of the income. we do not hear it because the rich are doing very well and what to protect that situation. what to protect that situation. i think that james' point is absolutely right. i think the republicans sadly have played an obstructionist role, heavily down more filibusters in the past two years the and i believe that any time in the history of the u.s. senate. senate. they have been declared they are intent on winning elections not with regard to addressing very serious issues. we can have disagreements. we can have disagreements. it is a democracy. but republicans said not simply be saying no, no. -- should not simply be saying no. caller: thank you for c-span,
and thank you for bernie sanders for lobbying for clean water in washington, d.c. -- i talked to him on the elevator once. i am a retired union, under from wayne county. many people do or don't know that west virginia and is being destroyed by mountaintop removal mining. about 90% of it is owned by corporations either outside the state or the country. we are one of the wealthiest states in the u.s., and at the bottom of every list. that is as far as median income, education level, poverty. we are at the top of every list of the worst. we have lots of natural resources being extracted, but we receive no benefit. both our democratic party, and the republican one here are both owned by corporations.
we have a u.s. senate race occurring now between our current gov. joe mentioned, and a wealthy businessman and out of the northern part of the state. if you put them in a bag and pull the not, you could not tell which is which. host: we will leave it there. guest: joe said a lot, but his last point about there not been enough difference between democrats and republicans, and both heavily influenced by big money -- no question that democrats should do more for the middle-class than republicans ever did. having said that, if you only having said that, if you only think about the 1930's when fdr became president, he was prepared to say boldly but he would stand with the working class of america and take on what he called the economic loyalists -- those repeople who were exploiting workers all over america.
when your party who can get rid of corporate money to misting of working people. get small campaign donations, y that willldly sat take on a private insurance companies, and in the drug companies, and military industrial complex. host: what is one of the issues currently in vermont, you are focused on an index guest: a number of them, one is probably end. vermont is one of those rural states -- one issue is broadband. we have communities that don't yet have strong internet ell phonens, or cal
service. the only got a very generous grant through the stimulus package, well over $100 million. the other issue that we are working on in vermont is that there is all lot of support for single-payer medicare system. i'm working to see that vermont becomes the first state and the country to provide health care to each person in a cost- effective way. host: is the yankee nuclear reactor still open? guest: it is. the state senate voted overwhelmingly bipartisan not to renew it. the owners are not happy about that. host: the next phone call, from
the glendale, arizona. caller: the first of all, i am not a rich person by any means. however, what i want to know is, i find it shocking economy and with your seemingly communist benches in the u.s. senate, and why you want to cause some kind of class warfare and condemn the rich? people can work card here to entertain something we can work hard here. a list in honduras a medical mission - i was there. host: we got your point. host: we got your point. guest: it is not nice to suggest that i am a communist. in most certainly not. i am a strong believer in democracy, not in authoritarian
society. in vermont like other states we have elections. in 2006 iran against one of the wealthiest person in the state to spend much more money, and i defeated him 2-1. the people made their own decision based on the work cited as a matter of the largest city, and within the senate. talking about class warfare, the you understand that it is taking place right now? i am not urging class warfare, but it is taking place. when large corporations shutdown plans an american ship jobs to china, in order to save money and for american workers out on the street, and leave them hanging, that is class warfare. the richest people in this country fight for huge tax breaks for themselves while middle-class village cannot afford to send their kids to college, that is class warfare. the wealthiest people in this
country fly around in the private jets, have the best health care in the world, and 46 million americans have no health insurance at all, 45,000 americans died this year because they do not have access to a doctor -- kathy, that is called class warfare. when 25% of our kids are living on food stamps at the time the top 1% earn 23 percent of income in this country, that is class warfare. so, class warfare exists rental end of 1% of class is winning the war. if you disagree with me, that is your privilege, but that is my view. host: senator bernie sanders, you have often been identified as a socialist -- are you? guest: in a democratic socialist, consistent with many democratic parties in western europe and scandinavia. i believe that we need a mixed economy where entrepreneurs create wealth and the but we use the government to make sure that
everybody has at least a minimal standard of living. we are the only nation in the industrialized world today, and health care reform will take a step further, that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right of citizenship. if you go to but germany and scandinavia and ask the kids in those countries, to cost to go to college -- know the answer? it is zero. if you give birth in europe, scandinavia, you get six months or eight months off. much more so than in the u.s. willing in terms of distribution of income, workers' rights, they do much better. what to meet democratic socialism is about is to said that every person in a society is intended to a least a minimal standard of living, and should not be living in a society where so few have so much. and so many have so little. host: the next phone call comes from a little early, texas --
wimberly. caller: of like to suggest that the previous caller what john c- span your august 29 town hall meeting to understand, that you are definitely representing your people, and you are a man of the people. i agree with just about every sort of thing you have ever done or said -- bless you. you are a treasure. we are represented down here by cornyn and nutchinson. i am blessed to have lloyd dogged as are represented, and we will reelect him -- i like to pick up on what he said of belle clean water. we have a big problem with the privatization of water. people in our small community
are paying revenue of just a flat rate to have water and sewer. the flat rate is $154 per month. guest: what? did she say it was $154 per month for whaater? that is incredible. the point which is making is that corporate interests -- protested as a postal charges for the air breathed. these guns are all over the place, are not stopping. that is why we need a political revolution in this country where we need an elected officials who are prepared to do what is very difficult. we got a call earlier about the airwaves being deluged with campaign commercials before by the wealthy and large corporations. we need to let people who are prepared to take these goes on, and have campaign finance
reform sublet billion years and large corporations cannot buy elections. host: senator bernie sanders, this is another message by twitter. twitter. guest: i agree. host: the next call is from arkansas. caller: you're talking about the debate on whether to raise or keep taxes the same. my biggest deal is republicans or democrats, neither addressed the massive fraud associated disability among those younger than retirement age. i can ask at political events how many people know people who have draw disability illegally?
everyone knows between 20 and 50 people. it is so rampant. guest: in the state -- host: you said everyone in branch, arkansas knows someone who draws disability? guest: i think there is a point -- i think there is abuse and i think we should look at it. disability is there for the disabled, not for people to abuse it. host: a conservative twitterer -- [laughter] guest: a year that often in vermont. some said that back when you were running for mayor, and never voted for you. -- i hear that often in vermont.
we did 13 town hall meetings in august. host: you can watch that in our video library. guest: it was great with all kinds of people. one of the issues that appeared in nearly every meeting i did was the issue of trade, and loss of manufacturing jobs. when we talk about the decline of the middle class, we're talking about the fact we have lost millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs. people go to the store and it is hard to find a product manufactured in the u.s. one reason is a disastrous policy that s american workers to compete against desperate people in undeveloped countries to make only pennies per hour. to make only pennies per hour. we have got to change those
policies and the that corporate america start to reinvest in this country. host: i got to control by referring to rockdots as a conservative person. another call, from california. caller: i wanted to bernie to thank him. is a wonderful person, and i wish there more people like him. he sticks straight with no side talk. i'm very confused because the voted for obama, and i am a little disappointed because he seems to be afraid to do --i dove with him to be like bush, but my god, you must have to be, and so did the democrats -- they need to stand up. how can the republicans get away
with it, and we cannot? guest: i will tell you, i hear this all over the place. people voted for the president, respectively immensely, won him to be tougher. host: senator bernie sanders, independent of vermont, thank you for being our guest. up next, looking at the dream immigration proposal -- coming before the senate shortly. what is your position on it if you are familiar? guest: [inaudible] >> the labor department says that new claims for jobless benefits fell last week, the third decline in four weeks. many economists had expected an increase.
wholesale prices rose last month for the second straight month, largely due to a rise in energy costs. more on the tea party movement from demint is books earlier -- he says that he rejects concerns by some other republicans that the tea party-backed republicans are too conservative to win in november. he adds that the tea party represents a broad cross-section of americans. the senator cited other candidates doing well in the polls, including the florida candidate market overbuilt and the kentucky candidate rand paul. he said you cannot change washington unless you change the people here, and people are ready to throw out the bums. an update on the deep water drilling moratorium -- and a report by the administration set to release this morning says the moratorium in the gulf of mexico has not increased unemployment. this country the predictions of the oil industry officials and
gulf coast residents. the work stopped imposed after the spill may have temporarily cost of to 12,000 jobs, but finds no net job loss in the region, and in the because of the hiring of cleanup crews and spending by bp on the recovery effort. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the c-span numbers provide coverage of politics, non- fiction affairs, and history. it is all available online, on television, on radio, and social networks. find content any time on our library. we take it on the road with our bus and digital content. available in more than 100 million homes. provided as a public service. >> for me or anyone else considering continuing in the public service, the request is,
do you have a positive vision for the direction that the country should have? specific ideas to employment division, and a demonstrative set of experiences that show that you can handle it? >> and outgoing minnesota senator tim: take on a potential -- tim pawlenti. >> warren brown writes the weekly column for "the washington post" -- it is arguable, and justifiable to say we would not have a black middle class, had we not had general motors, ford motors, and chrysler. >> in 2008, supported the bailout of the auto industry. he will speak and sunday night. >> this weekend -- a conflict between the first amendment and national security. take unnecessary
secrets. this weekend on "book tv." host: now joining us this chris strohm, a national security reporter for "congress daily." he is here to talk about the new dream emigration proposal. what is it? guest: the direct is a portion of immigration reform that would essentially allow young adults who were brought into the country illegally as miners to gain citizenship. if they came before they're 16, graduated high school, go to college or served in the military for least two years. it is considered to be one of the least controversial aspects of immigration reform. senator, at senate majority
leader harry reid announced he will try to attach this to the defense authorization bill when it comes to the floor next week. that is a controversial move on behalf of the senate and democrats. the basically index the immigration issue back on to the table. there is already republican opposition. it remains to be seen if procedurally they will be able to do it. host: ok, according to the dream act, do know what the acronym stands for? guest: for development, relief, education act for minors. host: you must have entered the u.s. before the age of 16, most of in prison for least five years, most of graduated from the u.s. has a go or obtained ged, or been accepted in into an
institution of higher learning, must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of fabrication, and most of good moral character. -- at the time of application. you say this is the least controversial and -- why? guest: these would-be miners who were brought illegally to the country. they are here now. they are going to school, or seven in the military. this would provide them believe, given the ability to get on the path to citizenship. it is considered to be one of the least controversial aspects because it is addressing the plight of children and young adults who know, in many cases by no charge of their own were brought here illegally by their
parents or other adults. parents or other adults. in the overall context of immigration reform, there are many different proposals to create a process by which 11 million estimated illegal emigrants could get on the path to citizenship. of the kids did on the issue of adults and children -- adults and children -- advocates of them get on the issue of adults and children as being something to be addressed by legislation. democrats in congress and president obama have not been able to advance the ball or a comprehensive immigration reform. reform. so, immigration immigration
advocates look at this as the lower-handing fruit in terms of the overall debate. historically, the dream that has had bipartisan support. host: you say it has been around awhile? guest: since 2001. and has never been able to get past the procedural hurdles in congress. the last time it was brought up for a vote was october 2007. at that time in the senate failed to invoke cloture on it by a vote of 52-44. there was a split in terms of democrats and republicans supporting it. there were eight moderate commit two conservative democrats who voted against it. at that time, there were not enough republicans in support to
get it over the finish line. it has cassatt out there ever since it. -- it has sat out there ever since. it is a piece of a larger puzzle of reform, but democrats have not been able to advance comprehensive reform. now they are stepping back and looking to do something that has had bipartisan support in the past. something that helps unpeople. -- beyond people. it is seen as having a shot, but procedurally and is an open question. host: by 47 days before election is this still coming up? has it been expected to be introduced? guest: it took many people by surprise when senator reid mentioned including it in his
defense authorization bill. politically for the democrats, they look -- they see a need to do something on immigration reform. president obama promised to turn his campaign to enact comprehensive immigration reform. nothing has been done on that. senator harry reid is in a tough reelection battle in nevada. in april he gave a speech at a rally and promised to take up immigration reform this year to make it, . the democrats need to do something to make good on promises made to the hispanic community. this is something that has support within the hispanic
community and the democratic base. now they are trying to advance this one little aspect of overall immigration reform because they have not been able to do the overall package. host: what is the political advantage to any republican supporting it? guest: right now is not clear that there will be any. there are two boards of opposition now. one is that residually the direction not be attached to the defense authorization bill. republicans are out there saying that it is not germane. other republicans say the three met at in and of itself should not be taken up, but rather in the larger context. by trying to address it piecemeal, it is not right thing.
then there are groups for strict enforcement of immigration laws, enforcement of immigration laws, saying that this would be slippery if passed. it could lead to other reforms the road that they would oppose. next week senate democrats will try to use a procedural motion to bring up country met as an amendment, and it remains to be seen if there will be the votes to clear that hurdle. host: 202- is the error code for all of our numbers. here are the phone numbers. -- it is the area code -- 202 --
for all of our numbers. sylvia, a democrat, your first. sorry -- ilo, i'm just wanted to say is the person most admire in the senate today. in regards to the treatment, i happen to be cuban-american. i was born in cuba, and came up when castro took over. it was an easy path for me to become an american citizen. that is true of most cuban-born citizens today. unlike to find out the reason why, even though i benefited from that law and policy, why we seem to have special privileges for certain -- i would like to find out -- for a certain
countries. if i had been born in mexico or guatemala, my situation would be different today. different today. guest: u.s. immigration policy does not necessarily favor anyone country over another. there are certain programs that will favor certain types of immigrants over other types. that is part of the immigration debate right now. all of this is on the table. these issues have been debated for years. there were efforts in congress four years ago to pass comprehensive reform. it was not successful.
they tried again in 2007. it was not successful. evidence has stagnated, and has been a major effort since then. the democrats will say there is not republican report, especially in the senate. they need 60 votes to advance a bill in the senate. critics will say that if democrats are serious about it, they will put up the bill and put it to the test. especially in the house with the democratic majority there. house speaker nancy pelosi has shown the insurance to prioritize something, she can push it through. in the senate, this is the next effort that democrats are taking up. it is the smallest piece of the overall emigration puzzle there trying to advance right now.
host: above what the" has an article regarding it. the plant that democrats make a play for latino votes -- with a picture of senator melendez their. caller: good morning. caller: good morning. this is just a form of amnesty -- it is ironic that you are a national security reporter. this undermines our security by way of the border. you are proposing in slavery for corporate america. to allow these people to come in to allow these people to come in as cheap labor, and have corporations never give americans a proper wage. what country would allow me to enter illegally, and then in turn give me employment? turn give me employment? guest: the amnesty debate is
something that has surrounded immigration reform. the proposals out there do not guarantee citizenship to anyone. even the dream act -- students and adults have to prove their commitment to the country by going to school or serving in the military. the immigration reform proposals provide a pathway, but there certain requirements to be met such as criminal background checks, learning english, and other measures. other measures. the legislative proposals put forward have also incorporated border security. there has been more action done on it and the absence of
immigration reform law and has been done previously. when reform was last enacted in 1986, caller was a lot of criticism that it did not come with enough border security and enforcement. the democrats have been sensitive to that this time around. in the absence of the immigration reform, lots of money has been poured into border security. before the last congressional recess in august, i'm there was criticism from republican opponents that more needs to be done on border security. at the last minute we saw senate democrats led by charles schumer from new york rush from the senate floor to put forward a bill to provide six of $9 for border security.
-- $600 million for border secretive. the agents would provide more unmanned drones along the border. over the last several years there have been more -- has been more and more money put into border security. democrats have come themselves politically meeting to support that. that. with the argument that they will do border security with the expectation that eventually will be support for immigration reform. reform. the argument made is that they will support border security enforcement, but are expected to return with changes to the immigration law. host: are there any border security provisions in the current dream proposal?
guest: nothing. the dream of proposal is seen as one aspect of overall reform. senator robert menedez announced yesterday he will provide a comprehensive bill by the end of the month. this seems to be hasty in rolling this out. there is lots of controversy as to which go into it and how it should be structured. host: and with the congress and in a couple of weeks. guest: yes. it is viewed as a more political move to give something to show hispanic voters and the democratic base that something
is being worked on. that political calculus is there. senator menendez says his ultimate intention is to get the vehicle on the table that can now be looked at, and that the white house can have something of substance to point to and work with congress on. but there is no time to do it. if introduced at the end of the month, congress will only beat in the session a few days after that before leaving before the election. election. nobody thinks and immigration proposal will go for before the november elections. i spoke to senator menendez yesterday about this, about doing it before a lame-duck
session. he said he is interested. whether it is possible is controversial. there would be lots of opposition. i have heard that senator chuck schumer is looking towards january to move some type of immigration bill. host: this is milford, pa., a democrat. caller: get a kick out of the reform act -- and the dramatic? this is a nightmare act. the gentleman is saying there are 50 million illegals? everyone knows there are 30 million illegals. they are called undocumented, and called without status? hey, they are criminals. we have 15 million people here without a job, and they're going to let all these people for in?
you are trying to make this country.a third world host: mr. chris strohm? guest: this is the immigration debate -- a hot button, emotional, controversial issue. congress has been grappling with it for years. even the former administration, george w. bush, supported incomprehensive immigration reformt immigrationhey wanted to create a pathway for illegal immigrants in the country to gain citizenship. it has been on the table. no solutions have been reached since the proposal in 1986. it is not clear the will be any
reform in the near future. politically, republicans are poised to gain seats for november elections. especially in the house. it will complicate efforts for democrats and white house to move on the bill. this will not be resolved for years. host: here is a message by twitter. this caller is from pompano beach, florida. caller: good morning. senatornst the new act because it is
fraud. if you are over in this country, and you have committed fraud, everything you have done -- i did not vote for president obama to even deal with us. if i knew that he would, i would not have voted for him. take care of the american citizens. close the borders. they need to go home. they need to go home. everything they have ever done in this country should be voided if they have been here illegally. guest: part of the debate is when do we achieve border security? there is no timeframe.
the administration just says the borders are more secure than ever. ever. statistically, there are more resources there now than in the past 20 years. certainly, the issue of when it is known that the border is secure and illegal immigration is decreasing as a moving target no one seems to know how to grasp. another issue with reform as the proposals on the table, talking about giving people a pathway to citizenship that they can earn if they have been in the country for certain period of time -- but opponents say, how will you ever know how long someone has been here?
there are many individual provisions that are controversial. host: in 2007, eight democrats voted against it -- the late senator byrd, max baucus, and the following -- all of whom are still in the senate, with the exception of senator byrd. guest: the numbers do not work for democrats right not to have enough support to pass the tree that. in 2007 the did notort. they did have republican support -- 12 republicans who came to vote for the direct. but five of those are now gone. and -- and then some republicans who have voted for it in the past have said they will not support this time because it'll believe it should be part of the defense bill.
hatch has said he will not support. senate democrats and immigration proponents are looking at 2 on the republican side and might be able to bring it over to support passing the dream at? the names that come up for some familiar republicans who have broken ranks and joined democrats, collins, snowe, brown, and browback from kansas -- now running for reelection, but for governor. he could perhaps provide a crucial vote -- signature brwonback. host: how does this help senator reid in his reelection campaign? guest: his politically trying to make good on promises.
earlier, in late april, talking to voters in the nevada, he said comprehensive reform needs to be done this year. this week he said conference of reform is not possible. reform is not possible. so, there is definitely a divide within the senate democrat caucus and the terms of what is possible now. senator menendez is coming forward with a bill. he announces he is doing it to one day after senator reid said it is not possible this year. it is not possible this year. he is putting forth something it has had bipartisan support in the past, something popular with the hispanic community in democratic base.
he is trying to appeal to voters in his home state. his opponent, sharon angle, a conservative backed by the tea party, already has an ad out for the friend of illegal immigrants, attacking him. it came only one day after senator reed announced he would try to move the tree left. it is a hot-button issue. senator reid has made the political calculation that this will help them. yesterday i was talking with the congressman from illinois who heads the congressional hispanic caucus, the immigration reform caucus -- says he will go to
nevada to stump for harry reid because senator reid had shown he is willing. host: dave, va. caller: i just happened to turn on the tv and caught the party is talking about immigration proposal. i got out maybe 20 years ago. when i did, i could not buy a jobber from here. most getting them more hispanics. but was always under the impression that if you were an honorable discharge a veteran, you should be given priority. but it was not true in my case. where i live is economically poverty-stricken. the cost of living out ways the average wage. therefore, i have seen it, been there where 15 or maybe 20
illegals are living in a one- bedroom apartment or a trend. it is kind of sad to see. it is kind of sad to see. . they don't make much in mexico. another of jobs down there because we sent a bunch down there. guest: the caller raises a point about the economy. that overshadows this entire debate. there are those who say trying to reform now with this economy down is not productive. there are democrats and proponents of the bill would say by legalizing immigrants, you can best economy.
host: what is the reason for attachment to the defense authorization act? is that a must-pass in the next three weeks? guest: yes, the bill moves every year. it is considered a must-pass. it is not clear that it will pass this year. it has another provision attached which would repeal thet ask, don't tell for thet ask, don't tell for military which in and of itself is controversial. the lead republican, senator john mccain, has talked about clear up the defense authorization bill. host: if so, could this be attached to a continuing resolution? or does it have to be clean money bill? guest: it would be difficult
because of the issue of being germane or not. democrats argue the draft is attached to the defense bill because it is attached with illegal immigrants serving in the military. host: this message by twitter asks how many are in the military? guest: i do not know specifically, but have heard it could help two million young adults overall, not just the military. military. host: this is a caller from central city, ky. caller: this whole thing sickens me about politics today. you called this political
calculus. it is nothing but political pandering. the democrats now -- is what is happening 47 days before the midterm elections. the political parties will use this for traction either way. the matter how it goes, the democrats will use it -- look what we have done, all look what they are doing against your. they could not care less about the plight of illegal immigrants. they just want votes and need an issue. they are treating them like cattle. both parties are treating us all like cattle. it is the reason why you see the tea party. the two political house's believe they are houses of royalty. they do not care about what is right and what needs to be done for people. guest: there is no doubt that
immigration is a political issue in both parties are seizing on it. there is no doubt that senator reed believes it is something that will help not only his campaign, but that of democrats in other races around the country. you can look at florida, colorado -- the close races out there -- immigration is a hot- button issue. some people were surprised by the mover of harry reid to insert this back door to the table. -- there isready arrest of th already a republican response to the issue. host: we have seven minutes left with our guest to talk about the specific dream proposal of immigration. guest: it stands for
development, education, reform -- and i don't remember the exact. host: i had it written down. it is the development, release, education of alien members. this is a wichita, kansas. caller: with regard to the dream act, by comparison, this is another slap in the face to american citizens because americans are denied entrance into the military if they have a felony, it did not graduate from high school, have too many tattoos. it is unfair. guest: there are non-citizen serving in the military and have been fighting in the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the direct would provide them relief.
host: chris strohm, a national security reporter -- did you and harassed this -- did you inherit this? guest: immigration cannot be separated from border security. the overall debate deals with border security. that is why cover it. host: economy was the excuse for opposition to the dream that today -- what was the reason in 2005, 2007? guest: there were different reasons in both years. in 2006 the house would not allow the bill to go forward. it was an election year. it was an election year. there was the issue of securing
the border over immigration reform, paramount for house republicans at the time. in 2007, the political dynamics have changed with democrats taking over congress. but at that point, even though the senate had passed the immigration reform the year before, they were not able to advance it in the 2007 debate. host: buffalo, tory, hi. caller: two points -- if you left this dramatic, you say it is up and not to only people from mexico, but for anyone from any country? so someone can come from afghanistan, pakistan, iran? and there is a legal way into this country. immigration reform is just a
room wanting an easy way, an easy path. guest: of the agreement applies to illegal immigrants to have been in the u.s. for least five years, and two were brought here at an age under 16. they have not graduated u.s. high schools, and have entered u.s. colleges or the u.s. military for least two years. so, it does not apply it to someone who look at the legislation passing and say i want to get into the u.s. right now. they would have had to be in the country for at least five years. host: her second point? it is not just for people from mexico. guest: yes, it is not about any
country in particular. host: alabama, will. a democrat. caller: i think that i called on the wrong line. i don't know to be known as a democrat. my first question -- why can't we apply the current law as written, and force it -- and enforce it? by far are we the only country the world who does not use our military to secure the borders? we just allow anybody in here. guest: there are restrictions and the law with the military not being able to actually enforce domestic laws, but the national guard is being used. it is at a very small level. i think president obama
announced he would send 1200 national guard troops to the border. they are supporting the border patrol to find and arrest illegal immigrants. on the other aspect of enforcing national laws, and that's part of the overall debate, how to better enforce nationalist. more resources have been put toward the border. the patrol as not at 2000 agents -- is now at 20,000 agents -- there are about 40,000 detention beds. the number of illegal immigrants being deported has increased over the years. but that has been the argument against doing immigration reform
that not enough is being done to enforce the current laws on the books. a matter of trying to come tion on dealing withion illegal immigration while still enforcing the nation's laws. caller: regarding the dream bill, it seems to me clearly this should be a bipartisan effort, and both parties should to their horns because suddenly, is in the realm of children's advocacy we are most lacking. we do not speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. we can speakor